Is the patch today the CV changes?

[AdmiralThunder]

9 minutes ago, ArIskandir said:

How many moronic design choices are secondary to CVs not being able to freely switch between planes and hull? 

I do wonder what's the rationale behind not being able to do something as elementary as switching back to your hull without needing to recall the planes. 

Yeah I don't like that either. It is a poorly thought out system per usual with those folks LOL.

Why not just keep R for DCP only as they do other classes and assign whatever the CV has on R (engine cooling) to another letter. Then if the CV catches on fire or is flooding have the same effects surface ships get for it appear on your plane screen. Wow so hard to do that so we can press R.

Edited June 24 by AdmiralThunder

[Col_NASTY]

Curios...

Sincerely asking..

Of ALL the advantages CVs have,  why do I never see people complaining about the most obvious avoidance of reality ( of the many ) that they enjoy.

The MYTHICAL Impervious and impenetrable decks that bounce every and all AP that hits them?

I know they show T-10 at 102MM but everything skips right off of it ( gunfire ) 

Everything in the game can be citideled through the deck , many without plunging fire but you can bounce 100S of AP shells of a CVs deck while it just keep launching planes and kill you?

Don't get me started of non stop planes launching while shells are landing all of the decks and fires are going on🙃

DDs Torp tubes get Disabled/Destroyed all the time why not Catapults??

Ok. I'm gonna leave this alone before I fall down the CV Rabbit hole🤣

[Volron]

5 hours ago, Ensign Cthulhu said:

Regarding the carrier changes in general:

 

I'm looking forward to the day when you all scream at your CV player for not spotting and realize half a second later that the nerfs you wanted prevent him from doing so. 

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.  Has always been the CV life.  hahahaha

[Nevermore135]

22 minutes ago, AdmiralThunder said:

Yeah I don't like that either. It is a poorly thought out system per usual with those folks LOL.

Why not just keep R for DCP only as they do other classes and assign whatever the CV has on R (engine cooling) to another letter. Then if the CV catches on fire or is flooding have the same effects surface ships get for it appear on your plane screen. Wow so hard to do that so we can press R.

I’ve always seen these automated features as the devs’ attempts to keep things much simpler than they were under the old RTS CV system. The ability to effectively multitask is what separated the very good CV players from the rest. WG realized what was wrong with RTS CV’s and the new design represents the metaphorical pendulum at the opposite end of the spectrum.

Edited June 24 by Nevermore135

[Wolfswetpaws]

13 minutes ago, Col_NASTY said:

Curios...

Sincerely asking..

Of ALL the advantages CVs have,  why do I never see people complaining about the most obvious avoidance of reality ( of the many ) that they enjoy.

The MYTHICAL Impervious and impenetrable decks that bounce every and all AP that hits them?

I know they show T-10 at 102MM but everything skips right off of it ( gunfire ) 

Everything in the game can be citideled through the deck , many without plunging fire but you can bounce 100S of AP shells of a CVs deck while it just keep launching planes and kill you?

Don't get me started of non stop planes launching while shells are landing all of the decks and fires are going on🙃

DDs Torp tubes get Disabled/Destroyed all the time why not Catapults??

Ok. I'm gonna leave this alone before I fall down the CV Rabbit hole🤣

The British CV's did have armored flight-decks.  Seemed to work well for them during WW-II.

Catapults disabled would only apply to a few CV's during WW-II. 
(Some used catapults to launch planes port/starboard, like a primitive version of the Battlestar Galactica.)
Deck catapults weren't used much during WW-II.
Arrestor wires were used though.  So I hope you're not confusing the two?

In the RTS CV era, fire on the flight-deck would prevent the launching of planes, unless a player trained their Captain with a specific skill designed to overcome that impediment.  The cost of the skill was 3-points, if I recall correctly.
Re-worked CV's have been "dumbed-down" in a number of ways, as you're aware.
Damage Control and flight-operations complexities seem to have been included in that process.

[Col_NASTY]

43 minutes ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

Deck catapults weren't used much during WW-II.

Yep that is correct... AT the same time though they had planes stacked all over the decks and they were destroyed and damaged during direct attacks.

Arrestor wires were used though.  So I hope you're not confusing the two?

I was, but again..Damaged all the time and planes had to be ditched. AND a CV could not keep launching and recovering while under attack in any war.

In the RTS CV era, fire on the flight-deck would prevent the launching of planes, unless a player trained their Captain with a specific skill designed to overcome that impediment.  The cost of the skill was 3-points, if I recall correctly.
Re-worked CV's have been "dumbed-down" in a number of ways, as you're aware.
Damage Control and flight-operations complexities seem to have been included in that process.

Thnx as always for the input.

 

[thornzero]

Since I've been getting better I am not minding cvs as much as before but if they do anything I think they should not be able to drop fighters on top of caps. That is probably the only point of pain I have. Regular spotting is a bit situational and inconsistent as it is. 

[Daniel_Allan_Clark]

1 hour ago, AdmiralThunder said:

assuming they even realize the ship is on fire/flooding

FYI, a CV hull, like all hulls, is displayed with its hp and fire/flood status in the lower left corner of the HUD...even when flying your planes.

[Jakob Knight]

I strongly suspect when the changes went into actual testing en mass, WG discovered how much they overreached with them and had to reevaluate which to put in and to what degree.  The Sub changes were advertised as widely and were put into place within a few months, but for WG to go silent on the CV changes is a good indication testing is not going as well for their changes.

 

Not a big surprise for anyone who looked at them objectively, of course, as it was clear those changes were so large as to leave CVs in an unworkable state if they were all implemented.  We'll have to see how things go down the road, but there is always the possibility WG will either go back to the drawing board with them or decide CVs are not worth the workload to change from their current version.

 

 

Edited June 24 by Jakob Knight

[Nevermore135]

1 hour ago, Col_NASTY said:

Curios...

Sincerely asking..

Of ALL the advantages CVs have,  why do I never see people complaining about the most obvious avoidance of reality ( of the many ) that they enjoy.

The MYTHICAL Impervious and impenetrable decks that bounce every and all AP that hits them?

I know they show T-10 at 102MM but everything skips right off of it ( gunfire ) 

Everything in the game can be citideled through the deck , many without plunging fire but you can bounce 100S of AP shells of a CVs deck while it just keep launching planes and kill you?

 

There aren’t any special mechanics at play here - CV armored flight decks behave the same way in game as any other armored deck of their thickness would. The difference is that CV decks are large and flat, without large central superstructures, turrets, etc. to catch shells. Most of the time when targeting other ships even if you are aiming at a location armored against your shells, dispersion means some of your shells will end up in the aforementioned squishy bits.

Edited June 24 by Nevermore135

[ArIskandir]

19 minutes ago, Jakob Knight said:

Not a big surprise for anyone who looked at them objectively, of course, as it was clear those changes were so large as to leave CVs in an unworkable state if they were all implemented. 

I don't consider the changes leave CVs unworkable, it's just the changes themselves were not only overcomplicated but borderline irrational even for a 'game mechanic' perspective and totaly immersion breaking. This is actually the common problem of 'overengineering' a solution, it may work in theory but its 'applicability' can't stand reality.

[Wolfswetpaws]

3 hours ago, Col_NASTY said:

Yep that is correct... AT the same time though they had planes stacked all over the decks and they were destroyed and damaged during direct attacks.

 

I was, but again..Damaged all the time and planes had to be ditched. AND a CV could not keep launching and recovering while under attack in any war.

 

Thnx as always for the input.

You're welcome for the input.

I do seem to remember that the CV's of Taffy-3 were doing their best to launch/recover/re-arm/launch planes though, during the attack.
Some of those CV's did take some hits, but I'm not sure the damage was enough to interrupt flight operations.

I'd agree that the actual real-life conditions of the CV and her flight-deck, and the actual damage sustained (if any) would determine the extent of impact upon flight operations.
Weather may also be a factor.  

Correction about Taffy-3.
Planes were launched from CV's, and ordered to re-arm at nearby land based airfields.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_off_Samar

Quote

The Run to the East (06:45 to 07:15)[edit]

At 06:50 Admiral Sprague ordered a formation course change to 090, directed his carriers to turn to launch their aircraft and then withdraw towards a squall to the east, hoping that bad visibility would reduce the accuracy of Japanese gunfire. He ordered his escorts to the rear of the formation to generate smoke to mask the retreating carriers and ordered the carriers to take evasive action, "chasing salvos" to throw off their enemy's aim, and then launched all available FM-2 Wildcat fighter planes and TBM Avenger torpedo bombers with whatever armament they were already loaded with. Some had rockets, machine guns, depth charges, or nothing at all. Very few carried anti-ship bombs or aerial torpedoes which would have enabled aircraft to sink heavy armored warships. The Wildcats were deemed a better fit on such small aircraft carriers instead of the faster and heavier Grumman F6F Hellcats that were flown from the larger U.S. Navy carriers. Their pilots were ordered "to attack the Japanese task force and proceed to Tacloban airstrip, Leyte, to rearm and refuel". Many of the planes continued to make "dry runs" after expending their ammunition and ordnance to distract the enemy. At about 07:20 the formation entered the squall, and the Japanese fire slackened markedly as they did not have gunnery radar that could penetrate the rain and smoke.^[18]

In-game, there are a small number of maps with airfields.
I think it would be interesting if the airfields could be captured and utilized as forward bases for aerial operations.  🙂 

Edited to add:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_off_Samar

Quote

The Run to the South (07:30 to 09:45)

"... The escort carriers of Taffy 3 turned south and withdrew through shellfire at their top speed of 17.5 kn (20.1 mph; 32.4 km/h). The six carriers dodged in and out of rain squalls, occasionally turning into the wind to launch the few planes they had left.  ..."

Thus, during combat conditions (though not actually taking hits) planes were launched with the threat of gunfire looming in the distance.
 

Edited June 24 by Wolfswetpaws

[Aethervox]

6 hours ago, ArIskandir said:

gnomes are known for their 'technical prowess'

As 'artificers'. 🙂

[ArIskandir]

7 minutes ago, Aethervox said:

As 'artificers'. 🙂

Indeed, some suggest they infiltrated the Nazi weapons R&D structure and helped develop many 'wunderwaffe" 🤣

 

[Itwastuesday]

14 hours ago, AdmiralThunder said:

Amen. Not only that but CV's really take it in the shorts not being able to even spot for themselves. I really hope WG realizes how dumb that is. I know a lot of people really hate that class but even they can't possibly think it is fair that a CV can't spot red ships with its planes even just for itself. WG is so clueless at times it defies logic.

Sure I do. It hasn't earned spotting. Though that's not what they're doing with these convoluted CV buffs. You'll travel in permanent speedboostmode and then dive into attack mode to spot. If it's hard to spot and strike, there'll be compensation buffs to the cv buffs.

[AdmiralThunder]

7 hours ago, Itwastuesday said:

Sure I do. It hasn't earned spotting. Though that's not what they're doing with these convoluted CV buffs. You'll travel in permanent speedboostmode and then dive into attack mode to spot. If it's hard to spot and strike, there'll be compensation buffs to the cv buffs.

I’m sorry but this is ridiculous. You won’t know when or where to go into attack mode because you can’t spot reds on your own with planes.

Sure if there are teammates spotting for you then you will know but what if the CV is alone?

Going into attack mode will only work if a red is actually nearby and good luck getting an actual attack off as you have a limited window to line it up. It will be like trying to attack a DD with its AA off now where by the time they are spotted you can’t do the attack. Just for every class.

It’s a very bad idea and if added it will be unfair to CV’s in a big way. If you think it is ok you are so biased against CV’s you aren’t interested in balance and fairness.

 

[Utt_Bugglier]

22 hours ago, AdmiralThunder said:

Amen. Not only that but CV's really take it in the shorts not being able to even spot for themselves. I really hope WG realizes how dumb that is. I know a lot of people really hate that class but even they can't possibly think it is fair that a CV can't spot red ships with its planes even just for itself. WG is so clueless at times it defies logic.

“Defies logic” doesn’t seem strong enough…”Denies logic,” the very existience of the principle thereof, often is more like what they do.

[Itwastuesday]

1 hour ago, AdmiralThunder said:

I’m sorry but this is ridiculous. You won’t know when or where to go into attack mode because you can’t spot reds on your own with planes.

 

 

The attack timers are long and your squad doesn't despawn on it. It'll be simple to get off the attack after initial scouting dive. That is, if attack mode even means the current attack mode and not just some other, new type of movement.

Edited June 25 by Itwastuesday

[AdmiralThunder]

10 minutes ago, Itwastuesday said:

The attack timers are long and your squad doesn't despawn on it. It'll be simple to get off the attack after initial scouting dive. That is, if attack mode even means the current attack mode and not just some other, new type of movement.

No. This is a ridiculous take. A CV that can't even spot for itself is not a fair mechanic. End of story. Not to mention AA will be able to attack the planes while they can't spot (DefAA active or something required). Just asinine.

I am no CV defender but man I can see and recognize unfair when it is in my face.

You and I disagree on this in every way possible clearly so I will just walk away for forum peace.

[Daniel_Allan_Clark]

8 minutes ago, AdmiralThunder said:

No. This is a ridiculous take. A CV that can't even spot for itself is not a fair mechanic. End of story. Not to mention AA will be able to attack the planes while they can't spot (DefAA active or something required). Just asinine.

I am no CV defender but man I can see and recognize unfair when it is in my face.

You and I disagree on this in every way possible clearly so I will just walk away for forum peace.

The hilarious thing is that, if they released their proposal onto the live server as described...it wouldn't even have time to be tested.

No CV captain would bother turning up.

The whole concept smacked of developers who had never played CV in their life...or played CV so poorly they don't understand how the idea could be bad.

[MnemonScarlet]

22 hours ago, ArIskandir said:

I don't consider the changes leave CVs unworkable, it's just the changes themselves were not only overcomplicated but borderline irrational even for a 'game mechanic' perspective and totaly immersion breaking. This is actually the common problem of 'overengineering' a solution, it may work in theory but its 'applicability' can't stand reality.

We likely see this cause someone at WG (and sadly we got this person, they didn't stay at Lesta), has the 'Vision' on How Things Must Be (which came into being when RTS CVs turned into such a big issue), and they probably got Very Offended™ that the playerbase thought up ways to fix it and decried their vision. So they will search for absolutely any alternative to doing something simple like minimap only spotting or whatever. Even if it has to be this convoluted weird stuff. Devs are absolutely susceptible to the same ego-trips and emotional blind spots as everyone else, they're not inhuman beings able to be 100% rational all the time anymore than the rest of us.

Edited June 25 by MnemonScarlet

[Jakob Knight]

55 minutes ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

The hilarious thing is that, if they released their proposal onto the live server as described...it wouldn't even have time to be tested.

No CV captain would bother turning up.

The whole concept smacked of developers who had never played CV in their life...or played CV so poorly they don't understand how the idea could be bad.

 

I think it smacks more of what I've stated in the past I think was responsible for the mess up of the first Rework.  That being trying to satisfy every objection or complaint at once and ending up with something arguably worse than what you started to fix.  

 

Each of the proposed changes would have been a major change to CV play to begin with on their own, and might have done enough to set CVs into a 'fair' spot to those players critical of them if they were the only change implemented.  But throwing all of them into play just amounted to a sledgehammer blow instead of a calibration tap.

 

When you try to please everyone without regard to the consequences, it almost always fails spectacularly.  

 

"Lieutenant, what do those pulse rifles fire?"

 

 

 

Edited June 25 by Jakob Knight

[OldSchoolGaming_Youtube]

I cant even imagine the day when WGs "experts" try and rip out all old spaghetti coding to try and cram in some new spaghetti coding into this game to start implementing the balancing changes. How many bugs do they on average create on each update, and most of them dont even include game mechanic changes!

Guessing it will be a good time to take a 4-6 month hiatus from tha game when that happens and just follow the "progress" in the forum threads. 

They couldn't even implement some new consumables into their latest game mode without them pouring over into Randoms. Wonder what will happen when they start re-code every spotting mechanic in the game, AA mechanic etc etc.

Interesting times ahead.

[WES_HoundDog]

CV spotting is a problem,   no CV spotting is a problem.

Solution.   Definitely not whatever cockamani plan WG is brewing up.

Real solution.   Planes don't spot for team mates unless Inside AA bubble.     And all ships get a radio jamming consumable.  Short duration causes mini map spotting only for team mates.   Nationality flavored for effectiveness and an extra balancing tool for devs.

 

WeeGee I accept checks and/or large bills.   Will send P.O. box info via P.M.

[Wolfswetpaws]

6 hours ago, Jakob Knight said:

"Lieutenant, what do those pulse rifles fire?"

"I wanna introduce you to a personal friend of mine. This is an M41A Pulse Rifle. Ten millimeter, with over-and-under thirty millimeter pump action grenade launcher."
―Cpl. Hicks, to Ripley (from Aliens)
https://avp.fandom.com/wiki/M41A_Pulse_Rifle

Quote

M309 round: The M41A is chambered for the standard US M309 10×24mm caseless round, a 210 grain, steel-jacketed and explosive-tipped round embedded within a rectangular propellant block of Nitramine 50.[1]

https://avp.fandom.com/wiki/M41A_Pulse_Rifle